IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, DATE OF Decision : 18th January, 2012

Save this PDF as:

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, DATE OF Decision : 18th January, 2012"

Transcription

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 RFA No. 40/2012 DATE OF Decision : 18th January, 2012 M/S SEWA INTERNATIONAL FASHIONS & ORS... Appellants Through : Md. Rashid, Advocate. versus MEENAKSHI ANAND... Respondent Through : Mr. Naveen Kumar Chaudhary, Advocate. CORAM: HON BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. The challenge by means of this Regular First Appeal (RFA) filed under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is to the impugned judgment of the trial Court dated decreeing the suit of the respondent/landlord for mesne profits and possession. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant/defendant was a tenant of premises being Flat No. 308, third floor, Laxmi Bhawan, 72, Nehru Place, New Delhi measuring 352 sq. ft. The lease originally commenced in October, 1979 at a monthly rent of ` /-. Thereafter, pursuant to the provision of Sections 6A and 8 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, which allows enhancement of rent by 10% every three years, rent was regularly increased and the last undisputed enhancement was of ` /- per month with effect from The respondent/plaintiff, thereafter, got issued another legal notice dated enhancing the rent to ` /- with effect from This amount of rent includes maintenance charges of `880/- per month. With the rent being more than `3,500/- per month, the premises no longer enjoyed the protection under the Delhi Rent Control Act, The tenancy of the appellant was, thereafter, terminated by a legal

2 notice dated , under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and on failure of the appellant/defendant to vacate the suit premises, the subject suit for possession and mesne profits came to be filed. 3. The appellant contested the suit and raised several defences. One defence was that the notice dated increasing the rent to ` /- per month was not served. Another defence was that the notice was defective because this notice sought to increase the rent retrospectively. 4. Before proceeding further, I may note that whereas the respondent/plaintiff led evidence in the trial Court, however, no evidence was led on behalf of the appellant/defendant. Since in spite of imposition of costs, no evidence was led, the evidence of the appellant/defendant was closed by the trial Court, and which order has become final. This order of closing evidence was not challenged and nor were the costs imposed paid. This order of closing of evidence has also not been challenged in the present appeal. 5. The trial Court has held that the notice dated which was sent to as many as seven addresses is held to be served. It has also been held by the trial Court that although the language of the notice may be defective by which rent was sought to be increased retrospectively, however, even if the illegal demand seeking retrospective enhancement is taken away yet in any case the notice will statutorily operate to increase the rent by 10% after the expiry of 30 days from the date on which notice is given as per Section 8 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, The trial Court has thereafter considering the evidence led on behalf of the respondent/plaintiff, decreed the suit for possession and mesne profits. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant argued the following points before this Court:- (i) The notice dated increasing the rent to ` /- per month (inclusive of amount of `880/- payable as maintenance charges) was not served. While on this argument, I must note that the appellant accepted before the trial Court that an amount of maintenance charges is included in rent and this fact is noted in para 9 of the judgment at internal page 16. (ii) The notice dated was illegal because the notice given under Sections 6A and 8 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 cannot increase the rent retrospectively.

3 (iii) In the present case no preliminary decree was passed under Order 20 Rule 12 CPC and therefore impugned judgment and decree is liable to be set aside. 7. I am unable to agree to any of the arguments as raised on behalf of the appellant. So far as the first argument is concerned, it is absolutely misconceived in law inasmuch as the present is a case where notices were sent to as many as seven addresses of the appellant/defendant. Notices were sent at these addresses both by registered AD post and UPC. It is not the case of the appellant in the written statement filed before the trial Court that the addresses at which notices were sent were not the addresses of the appellant. In fact, this is also recorded in the impugned judgment. The trial Court has thereafter held with respect to the service of notices that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in M/s Madan & Co. v. Wazir Jaivir Chand, 1989(1) SCC 264, once notices are sent at the correct address, even if they are received back, such notices are deemed to be served upon the tenant. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the trial court has rightly held that notice dated , Ex. PW1/2 was duly served upon the appellant/defendant. 8. The second argument raised on behalf of the appellant with respect to the illegality in the notice because a notice given under Sections 6A and 8 of the Delhi Rent Control Act cannot increase the rent retrospectively is also an argument which only sounds correct at the first blush, but the trial Court has rightly dealt with this issue by observing that the notice can surely be taken in terms of Section 6A to have a necessary legal effect of increasing rent 30 days after receipt of the notice. I agree with these finding and conclusion of the trial Court because surely once a notice increasing rent is sent, no doubt to the extent of the same demanding an illegal increase the same would not be legal, however, that cannot take away the correct legal effect of the notice and which is that rent will be increased by 10% after thirty days of service of such notice. 9. The third argument raised on behalf of the appellant is also equally misconceived that it was necessary for the Court to pass a preliminary decree under Order 20 Rule 12 CPC before deciding the issue of mesne profits. Order 20 Rule 12 CPC is only one of the methods of passing of a judgment in a suit for possession and mesne profits, however, it is not mandatory that the Court shall first decree the suit for possession by taking evidence only on the aspect of illegality of possession and thereafter will set

4 out the case for trial with respect to the mesne profits. In the present case the evidence has been led on behalf of the respondent/plaintiff/landlord, simultaneously both with respect to the issues of possession and mesne profits and the suit has thereafter been decreed after the final arguments were addressed. No illegality can therefore be found in the judgment of the trial Court decreeing the suit for possession and mesne profits. Reliance placed by learned counsel for the appellant on the judgment of this Court titled as D.N. Kalia v. R.N. Kalia 178(2011) DLT 294 is totally misconceived inasmuch as evidence has very much been led in the present case on the issue of mesne profits. 10. Finally I may note that the defence that the maintenance charges were not `880/- per month has rightly been rejected by the trial Court by giving its findings/conclusions in para 11 of the impugned judgment which reads as under:- 11. PW 6 Kali Charan, is the Assistant Manager of Skyway Construction Co. who brought the record pertaining to the maintenance charges of the property in question and placed on record the bill dated , with respect to the claim of maintenance charges w.e.f. May, 2005 to , amounting to Rs. 54,144/- inclusive of service tax which document was Ex. PW 6/1. It was argued by Counsel for defendants that in terms of deposition of this witness, the society was issuing quarterly bills but no such quarterly bills were placed on record by any of the PWs. The two bills which have been placed on record as Ex. PW 1/D-1 and PW 6/1 are not for the quarterly period which makes it clear that the society had not issued any bill upon the defendants claiming the maintenance charges at Rs. 880/- per month, besides the fact that PW 6 had not produced carbon copy of the alleged bills which were allegedly issued upon the defendants on quarterly basis. However, I find sufficient justification for the above in deposition of PW 6 whereby he stated that the bill is issued on quarterly basis but in this case, particular bill till , was prepared only for court purpose. He also corroborated the testimony of PW 1, that sometime, intimation with regard to the maintenance charges is also sent to the respective flat owner of the building. According to this witness, rate of common maintenance charges was Rs per sq. feet per month w.e.f. April, Since, the bills were sent through ordinary post, therefore, no record was maintained and because of this reason, this witness as stated was not in position to produce the document of delivery of maintenance bill issued to the defendant number 1 or the owner of the flat. It was also deposed by PW 6 that w.e.f. May, 2005 to March, 2007, maintenance charges were at Rs. 2/- p.s.f. per month and with respect to the increase in maintenance charges, they had given the

5 notice to the occupants or owners of the flat of the building including the defendants which notification was also affixed on the notice board of the building. The said intimation dated , was also placed on record which was exhibited as Ex. PW 6/D-1. Besides the claim of the plaintiff that the defendant did not pay maintenance charges w.e.f April, 2005 to November, 2007, PW 6 rather proceeded ahead to say that the maintenance charges in fact had not been paid w.e.f. May 2005 to July, 2009 though admitted that the latest bill dated , had not been sent to defendant number 1. It is correct that the original ledger book was not brought by this witness whereas the photocopies of the ledger maintained for the property in question was Mark A where the last two entries were admitted to be inserted by PW 6 in the court itself, which were pertaining to the period after , it was clarified that the said entries had been inserted in the photocopy because the photocopy was prepared earlier when he appeared as a witness on the last date of hearing. Subsequent to which, those two entries were mentioned in the original ledger and he wanted to update the photocopy to be filed before the Court. Be that as it may, what is relevant for arriving at conclusion with respect to the computation of maintenance charges, is only after April, 2007 but prior to the period for which those two entries were inserted. The maintenance charges as reflected w.e.f. smarch, 2007, were also Rs. 880/- per month. The contention of Counsel for defendant that PW 6 was posted with Skyway Construction having its office at Barakhamba Road, New Delhi and also at Manglam Building, Vikas Marg, New Delhi, whereas the document i.e. Ex. PW 6/D-1 and other documents have been received from the office of Skyway Construction at Nehru Place, New Delhi, therefore, PW 6 was not a witness authorised to place on record those documents. As per the record, the designation of this witness has been mentioned as Manager with Skyway Construction having its office at many places and it is not necessary that Manager of the said Co. would remain seated at Nehru Place office of the Skyway Construction Co. There is no sugestion also to this witness that he was not competent to depose on behalf of Skyway Construction Co. and only because of this reason that he was not sitting at Nehru Place office would not render the documents filed on record as negated. The bills as placed on record by PW 1 and PW 6 and more particularly, the circular of the society which was affixed on the notice board of the society as deposed by PW 6 i.e. Ex. PW 6/D-1 makes it clear that maintenance charges were enhanced to Rs. 880/- per month w.e.f PW 6 is an official witness who has deposed as per the records of the society & I do not find any reason to disbelieve the version of this official witness whose deposition is supported by documents

6 placed on record. The plea that the carbon copies of the bills raised upon the defendant number 1 have not been filed by PW 6 on record, does not help the defence of the defendants if the maintenance charges were Rs. 704/- per month as claimed by defendants and were also paid by them to the society, the defendants themselves could have produced such bills raised upon them or the receipt for the payment of the maintenance to the society. Accordingly, having been established on record, the rate of rent at Rs. 2,738.23/- after June, 2007 and by adding maintenance charges at Rs. 880/- per month, the total rent works out to Rs. 3,618.23/- per month, which is above the amount of Rs. 3,500/- and thereby the suit filed by the plaintiff comes out of the purview of Delhi Rent Control Act, and is accordingly held to be not barred under the Provisions of DRC Act. (underlining added) To the aforesaid I may add that the amount of maintenance charges of `880/- per month are payable not only by the appellant but also by all persons similarly situated as the appellant in the subject multi-storeyed building. 11. No other issue is pressed or urged on behalf of the appellant. 12. The Supreme Court in the case of Ramrameshwari Devi and Others v. Nirmala Devi and Others, (2011) 8 SCC 249 has held that it is high time that actual and realistic costs be imposed in order to pre-empt and prevent dishonesty in litigation. Earlier, a Division Bench of three Judges in the case of Salem Advocate Bar Association Vs. Union of India, (2005)6 SCC 344 in para 37 has also observed that it is high time that actual costs be awarded. I am also entitled to impose actual costs by virtue of Volume V of the Punjab High Court Rules and Orders (as applicable to Delhi) Chapter VI Part I Rule I find that the present matter is a fit case for imposition of actual costs inasmuch as a tenant has blatantly overstayed in the suit premises and has kept on in one way or the other seeking to prevent payment of lawful dues in addition to failing to vacate the suit premises. The respondent/landlord has unnecessarily been dragged in litigation. The Supreme Court in the case of Ramrameshwari Devi (Supra) has made the following pertinent observations with regard to imposition of costs:- 43. We have carefully examined the written submissions of the learned Amicus Curiae and learned Counsel for the parties. We are clearly of the view that unless we ensure that wrongdoers are denied profit or undue benefit from the frivolous litigation, it would be difficult to control frivolous and uncalled for litigations. In order to curb uncalled for and frivolous litigation, the courts have to ensure that there is no incentive or motive for

7 uncalled for litigation. It is a matter of common experience that court's otherwise scarce and valuable time is consumed or more appropriately wasted in a large number of uncalled for cases. 47. We have to dispel the common impression that a party by obtaining an injunction based on even false averments and forged documents will tire out the true owner and ultimately the true owner will have to give up to the wrongdoer his legitimate profit. It is also a matter of common experience that to achieve clandestine objects, false pleas are often taken and forged documents are filed indiscriminately in our courts because they have hardly any apprehension of being prosecuted for perjury by the courts or even pay heavy costs. In Swaran Singh v. State of Punjab (2000) 5 SCC 668 this Court was constrained to observe that perjury has become a way of life in our courts. 52. The main question which arises for our consideration is whether the prevailing delay in civil litigation can be curbed? In our considered opinion the existing system can be drastically changed or improved if the following steps are taken by the trial courts while dealing with the civil trials. A. B. C. Imposition of actual, realistic or proper costs and or ordering prosecution would go a long way in controlling the tendency of introducing false pleadings and forged and fabricated documents by the litigants. Imposition of heavy costs would also control unnecessary adjournments by the parties. In appropriate cases the courts may consider ordering prosecution otherwise it may not be possible to maintain purity and sanctity of judicial proceedings. 54. While imposing costs we have to take into consideration pragmatic realities and be realistic what the Defendants or the Respondents had to actually incur in contesting the litigation before different courts. We have to also broadly take into consideration the prevalent fee structure of the lawyers and other miscellaneous expenses which have to be incurred towards drafting and filing of the counter affidavit, miscellaneous charges towards typing, photocopying, court fee etc. 55. The other factor which should not be forgotten while imposing costs is for how long the Defendants or Respondents were compelled to contest and defend the litigation in various courts. The Appellants in the instant case have harassed the Respondents to the hilt for four decades in a totally frivolous and dishonest litigation in various courts. The Appellants have also wasted judicial time of the various courts for the last 40 years.

8 56. On consideration of totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, we do not find any infirmity in the well reasoned impugned order/judgment. These appeals are consequently dismissed with costs, which we quantify as Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only). We are imposing the costs not out of anguish but by following the fundamental principle that wrongdoers should not get benefit out of frivolous litigation. (underlining added) 14. Accordingly, in the facts of the present case, there is no ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and decree, therefore, the present appeal is dismissed with costs of `50,000/-, which I quantify to be actual costs in the facts of the present case. Costs be paid within four weeks from today. 15. Appeal is disposed of accordingly. JANUARY 18, 2012 Sd./- VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. RFA No. 581/2003. DATE OF DECISION : 13th March, 2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. RFA No. 581/2003. DATE OF DECISION : 13th March, 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE RFA No. 581/2003 DATE OF DECISION : 13th March, 2012 M/S B.R.METAL CORPN. & ORS. Appellants Through : Mr. A.K. Singla, Sr. Advocate

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL NOS OF 2011 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos of 2011)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL NOS OF 2011 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos of 2011) IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 4912-4913 OF 2011 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 3157-3158 of 2011) REPORTABLE Ramrameshwari Devi and Ors. Appellants Versus Nirmala

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR POSSESSION Date of Judgment: RSA No.251/2008 & CM Nos.17860/2008 & 11828/2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR POSSESSION Date of Judgment: RSA No.251/2008 & CM Nos.17860/2008 & 11828/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR POSSESSION Date of Judgment: 28.4.2011 RSA No.251/2008 & CM Nos.17860/2008 & 11828/2010 UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD..Appellant Through: Mr.P.K.Seth,

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 RFA No.51/2012 DATE OF DECISION : 17th May, 2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 RFA No.51/2012 DATE OF DECISION : 17th May, 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 RFA No.51/2012 DATE OF DECISION : 17th May, 2012 MS. KRITI KOHLI Through: Mr. Rao Balvir Singh, Advocate... Appellant VERSUS

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR RECOVERY Date of decision: 17th July, 2013 RFA 383/2012. Versus

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR RECOVERY Date of decision: 17th July, 2013 RFA 383/2012. Versus IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR RECOVERY Date of decision: 17th July, 2013 RFA 383/2012 DESIGN WORKS Through: Mr. Kuldeep Kumar, Adv.... Appellant Versus ICICI BANK LTD... Respondent

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE BEFORE THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANANDA. R.S.A.No.1045/2006 (INJ)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE BEFORE THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANANDA. R.S.A.No.1045/2006 (INJ) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 13 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012 BEFORE THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANANDA R.S.A.No.1045/2006 (INJ) BETWEEN: Sri Ramakrishna S/o Shivannegowda Aged

More information

THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : Delhi Rent Control Act R.C.REV.29/2012 Date of Decision: Versus

THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : Delhi Rent Control Act R.C.REV.29/2012 Date of Decision: Versus THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : Delhi Rent Control Act R.C.REV.29/2012 Date of Decision: 17.08.2012 SMT. NARENDER KAUR Through: Mr. Adarsh Ganesh, Adv... Petitioner Versus MAHESH CHAND AND

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR POSSESSION. Date of Judgment : R.S.A.No. 459/2006 & CM No /2006 (for stay)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR POSSESSION. Date of Judgment : R.S.A.No. 459/2006 & CM No /2006 (for stay) IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR POSSESSION Date of Judgment : 27.4.2011 R.S.A.No. 459/2006 & CM No. 17688/2006 (for stay) SH. MOHD. TAJ Through:..Appellant Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog,

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR RECOVERY CS(OS) No.1177/2003 DATE OF DECISION :23rd July, 2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR RECOVERY CS(OS) No.1177/2003 DATE OF DECISION :23rd July, 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR RECOVERY CS(OS) No.1177/2003 DATE OF DECISION :23rd July, 2012 MRS VEENA JAIN... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Mohan Vidhani, Advocate with Mr. Rahul

More information

THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Judgment Reserved on: Judgment Pronounced on: versus -

THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Judgment Reserved on: Judgment Pronounced on: versus - THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Reserved on: 30.11.2010 Judgment Pronounced on: 03.12.2010 + CS(OS) No. 241/2010 AJAY AHUJA & ANR... Plaintiff - versus - M/S SUBHIKSHA TRADING SERVICES

More information

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % 21 st January, versus. Through: CORAM: HON BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J. MEHTA

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % 21 st January, versus. Through: CORAM: HON BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J. MEHTA * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RFA No. 1010/2018 % 21 st January, 2019 ROHTAS SINGH THROUGH LS.... Appellant Through: Mr. Mohd. Azam Ansari, Advocate (M. No.9990066404). versus UNION OF INDIA

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CM(M) No.887/2014 DATE OF DECISION : 25th September, 2014 VERSUS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CM(M) No.887/2014 DATE OF DECISION : 25th September, 2014 VERSUS IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CM(M) No.887/2014 DATE OF DECISION : 25th September, 2014 SMT. SALONI MAHAJAN Through: Mr. Puneet Saini, Advocate....Petitioner

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 RFA No.365 /2008 DATE OF DECISION : 10th February, 2012 VERSUS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 RFA No.365 /2008 DATE OF DECISION : 10th February, 2012 VERSUS IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 RFA No.365 /2008 DATE OF DECISION : 10th February, 2012 SHRI VIJAY KUMAR Through: Appellant in person.... Appellant VERSUS

More information

.. IN HIGH COURT OF DELHI:AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. I.A. No /2006 in C.S.(OS) No.795/2004

.. IN HIGH COURT OF DELHI:AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. I.A. No /2006 in C.S.(OS) No.795/2004 .. IN HIGH COURT OF DELHI:AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE I.A. No. 11454/2006 in C.S.(OS) No.795/2004 Judgment Reserved on: 09.08.2011 Judgment Pronounced on: 02.11.2011 MADAN LAL KHANNA

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : DELHI LAND REFORMS ACT, 1954 RSA No. 252/2013 DATE OF DECISION : 15th January,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : DELHI LAND REFORMS ACT, 1954 RSA No. 252/2013 DATE OF DECISION : 15th January, IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : DELHI LAND REFORMS ACT, 1954 RSA No. 252/2013 DATE OF DECISION : 15th January, 2014 SURESH BALA & ORS Through: Mr. B.S.Mann, Advocate....Appellants VERSUS

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. RFA No.458/2008. Date of decision: 3rd December, 2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. RFA No.458/2008. Date of decision: 3rd December, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE RFA No.458/2008 Date of decision: 3rd December, 2008 MUKESH KUMAR DECD. THR. LR'S and ANR.... Appellants Through: Mr.K.G.Chhokar,

More information

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Judgment delivered on: 4 th August, I.A. No.16571/2012 & I.A. No.16572/2012 in CS (OS) 2527/2009

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Judgment delivered on: 4 th August, I.A. No.16571/2012 & I.A. No.16572/2012 in CS (OS) 2527/2009 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 4 th August, 2015 + I.A. No.16571/2012 & I.A. No.16572/2012 in CS (OS) 2527/2009 VEENA KUMARI Through... Plaintiff Mr.D.S. Vohra, Adv.

More information

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + Date of Decision: % RSA 417/2015 & C.M. Nos /2015. versus.

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + Date of Decision: % RSA 417/2015 & C.M. Nos /2015. versus. $~26. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Date of Decision: 04.12.2015 % RSA 417/2015 & C.M. Nos.29313-14/2015 SHIV KUMAR... Appellant Through: Mr. Anil Sehgal, Mr. Om Prakash and Mr. Lalit Kumar

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION Judgment reserved on : 26.04.2011 Judgment delivered on : 28.04.2011 R.S.A.No. 109/2007 & CM No. 5092/2007 RAMESH PRAKASH

More information

Through: Mr. Deepak Khosla, Petitioner in person.

Through: Mr. Deepak Khosla, Petitioner in person. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE RESERVED ON: 12.09.2014 PRONOUNCED ON: 12.12.2014 REVIEW PET.188/2014, CM APPL.5366-5369/2014, 14453/2014 IN W.P. (C) 6148/2013

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Date of Judgment: FAO (OS) 298/2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Date of Judgment: FAO (OS) 298/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Date of Judgment: 17.01.2013 FAO (OS) 298/2010 SHIROMANI GURUDWARA PRABHANDHAK COMMITTEE AND ANR... Appellants Through Mr. H.S.

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE RSA No.64/2011 DATE OF DECISION : 31st January, 2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE RSA No.64/2011 DATE OF DECISION : 31st January, 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE RSA No.64/2011 DATE OF DECISION : 31st January, 2014 MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI Through: Ms. Shobha Gupta, Advocate....Appellant

More information

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + OMP Nos. 495/2007, 496/2007 & 497/2007

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + OMP Nos. 495/2007, 496/2007 & 497/2007 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + OMP Nos. 495/2007, 496/2007 & 497/2007 % Reserved on: 7 th January, 2016 Pronounced on: 28 th January, 2016 + O.M.P. No. 495/2007 SHRI DHRUV VARMA... Petitioner

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 RFA No.31/2011 DATE OF DECISION : 22nd February, 2011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 RFA No.31/2011 DATE OF DECISION : 22nd February, 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 RFA No.31/2011 DATE OF DECISION : 22nd February, 2011 SHREE LAKSHMI VENKATESH CARGO MOVERS AND CONSULTANTS... Appellant Through:

More information

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + FAO No. 257/2017. % 6 th July, versus. HINDUSTAN MEDIA VENTRUES LTD. & ORS...

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + FAO No. 257/2017. % 6 th July, versus. HINDUSTAN MEDIA VENTRUES LTD. & ORS... * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO No. 257/2017 % 6 th July, 2017 DEEPAK KUMAR @ DEEPAK SAHA... Appellant Through: Mr. Nakul Pathana and Mr. Akhand Pratap, Advocates. versus HINDUSTAN MEDIA

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. RFA No.137/2011. DATE OF DECISION : 4th March, 2011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. RFA No.137/2011. DATE OF DECISION : 4th March, 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE RFA No.137/2011 DATE OF DECISION : 4th March, 2011 NARESH KUMAR SAINI Through: Appellant Mr. S.P.Jha, Adv. VERSUS DAYA RANI DIXIT

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Judgment reserved on : 25th May, 2006 Date of decision : July 27th, 2006 RFA No. 139/2005 Sh. Ajay Kumar Grover... Appellant through

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Date of Judgment: RSA No.46/2011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Date of Judgment: RSA No.46/2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Date of Judgment: 10.3.2011 RSA No.46/2011 VIRENDER KUMAR & ANR. Through: Mr.Atul Kumar, Advocate...Appellants Versus JASWANT RAI

More information

Bar and Bench (www.barandbench.com)

Bar and Bench (www.barandbench.com) * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RFA No. 21/2018 % 8 th January, 2018 PRAVEEN SAINI Through: versus... Appellant Mr. Anupam Srivastava, Ms. Monika Srivastava and Mr. Dhairya Gupta, Advocates

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. RFA No.200/2003. Reserved on 14th February, 2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. RFA No.200/2003. Reserved on 14th February, 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE RFA No.200/2003 Reserved on 14th February, 2012 Pronounced on 2nd March, 2012 SHRI VED PRAKASH (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS...

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, CM(M) 374/2008 with CM Nos. 4286/2008 and 13305/2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, CM(M) 374/2008 with CM Nos. 4286/2008 and 13305/2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 CM(M) 374/2008 with CM Nos. 4286/2008 and 13305/2008 Reserved on : March 04, 2009 Date of Decision : March 17th, 2009 POONAM

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR PARTITION Judgment delivered on: CS(OS) 2318/2006

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR PARTITION Judgment delivered on: CS(OS) 2318/2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR PARTITION Judgment delivered on: 14.08.2012 CS(OS) 2318/2006 MR. CHETAN DAYAL Through: Ms Yashmeet Kaur, Adv.... Plaintiff versus MRS. ARUNA MALHOTRA

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 RFA No.595/2003 Reserved on: 4th January, 2012 Pronounced on: 13th January, 2012 SHRI VIRENDER SINGH Through: Mr. R.C. Chopra,

More information

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + CS(OS) No. 684/2004 % 8 th December, versus

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + CS(OS) No. 684/2004 % 8 th December, versus * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) No. 684/2004 % 8 th December, 2015 RAJESH @ RAJ CHAUDHARY AND ORS.... Plaintiffs Through: Mr. Manish Vashisth and Ms. Trisha Nagpal, Advocates. versus

More information

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. versus

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. versus * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) No. 576/2006 % 16 th September, 2015 CHATTAR SINGH MATHAROO Through:... Plaintiff Mr. J.M.Kalia, Advocate. versus ASHWANI MUDGIL & ORS. Through:... Defendants

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR PERPETUAL, MANDATORY INJUNCTION. Date of Judgment: CM(M) No.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR PERPETUAL, MANDATORY INJUNCTION. Date of Judgment: CM(M) No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR PERPETUAL, MANDATORY INJUNCTION Date of Judgment: 14.02.2012 CM(M) No.557/2008 DALMIA CEMENT (BHARAT) LTD. Through: Mr. D.K. Malhotra, Advocate....

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : DELHI LAND REFORMS ACT, 1954 RFA No.621/2003 DATE OF DECISION : 5th March, 2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : DELHI LAND REFORMS ACT, 1954 RFA No.621/2003 DATE OF DECISION : 5th March, 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : DELHI LAND REFORMS ACT, 1954 RFA No.621/2003 DATE OF DECISION : 5th March, 2012 ASHOK KUMAR & ORS.... Appellant Through: Mr. R.K. Anand, Advocate with

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. RFA No.95/2010. DATE OF DECISION : 17th January, 2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. RFA No.95/2010. DATE OF DECISION : 17th January, 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE RFA No.95/2010 DATE OF DECISION : 17th January, 2012 SANT RAM MANGAT RAM JEWELLERS Through: Ms. Sumita Kapil, Advocate.... Appellant

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR DECLARATION RSA No. 80/2009 DATE OF DECISION : 20th January, 2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR DECLARATION RSA No. 80/2009 DATE OF DECISION : 20th January, 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR DECLARATION RSA No. 80/2009 DATE OF DECISION : 20th January, 2014 PUSHPA RANI & ORS. Through: Mr. Subhash Chand, Advocate...Appellants. VERSUS

More information

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + RFA No.522/2017 and C.M. No.19306/2017(stay) % 7th August, versus

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + RFA No.522/2017 and C.M. No.19306/2017(stay) % 7th August, versus * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RFA No.522/2017 and C.M. No.19306/2017(stay) % 7th August, 2018 MANOJ ARORA... Appellant Through: Mr. M. Sufian Siddiqui, Advocate with Mr. Rakesh Bhugra, Advocate

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR RECOVERY Judgment reserved on Judgment delivered on

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR RECOVERY Judgment reserved on Judgment delivered on IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR RECOVERY Judgment reserved on 06.07.2012 Judgment delivered on 09.07.2012 RFA 669/2003 M/S FIITJEE LTD. AND ANR. Appellants Versus DR. KANWAL

More information

Through: Mr. Rahul Kumar Srivastava, Advocate. C.M(M) No. 211/2013. Through: Mr. Rahul Kumar Srivastava, Advocate.

Through: Mr. Rahul Kumar Srivastava, Advocate. C.M(M) No. 211/2013. Through: Mr. Rahul Kumar Srivastava, Advocate. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CM(M) Nos. 208/2013 & 211/2013 DATE OF DECISION : 4th December, 2014 C.M(M) No. 208/2013 SUDARSHAN KUMAR JAIN Through: Mr. Rahul

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR DECLARATION. Date of Reserve: January 14, Date of Order: January 21, 2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR DECLARATION. Date of Reserve: January 14, Date of Order: January 21, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR DECLARATION Date of Reserve: January 14, 2008 Date of Order: January 21, 2009 CS(OS) No.2582/2008 and IA No.425/2009 M/S DRISHTICON PROPERTIES

More information

Through Mr. Atul Nigam, Mr. Amit Tiwari, Advs. versus

Through Mr. Atul Nigam, Mr. Amit Tiwari, Advs. versus IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE OA 92/2013 & IA Nos. 132/2013, 18787/2012, 218/2013, 1581/2013 in CS(OS) 3081/2012 Reserved on: 29th October, 2013 Decided on:

More information

CIVIL APPEAL NO OF 2018 (Arising out of SLP(C) No of 2016) MOHD. SAHID AND OTHERS.Appellants VERSUS J U D G M E N T

CIVIL APPEAL NO OF 2018 (Arising out of SLP(C) No of 2016) MOHD. SAHID AND OTHERS.Appellants VERSUS J U D G M E N T REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10379 OF 2018 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 8586 of 2016) MOHD. SAHID AND OTHERS.Appellants VERSUS RAZIYA KHANAM (D)

More information

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Judgment delivered on: Versus CORAM :- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Judgment delivered on: Versus CORAM :- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 15.10.2015 + RFA 563/2015 NITIN JAIN...APPELLANT Versus GEETA RAHEJA...RESPONDENT ADVOCATES WHO APPEARED IN THIS CASE: For the Appellant

More information

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Date of decision:1 st December, 2009 M/S ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE. Versus

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Date of decision:1 st December, 2009 M/S ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE. Versus *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CM(M) No.807/2008. % Date of decision:1 st December, 2009 M/S ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD & ANR. Petitioner Through: Mr Prem Kumar and Mr Sharad C.

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT RFA No.358/2000 DATE OF DECISION : 9th April, 2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT RFA No.358/2000 DATE OF DECISION : 9th April, 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT RFA No.358/2000 DATE OF DECISION : 9th April, 2012 SHRI RAMESH CHAND... Appellant Through: Mr. Rajesh Aggarwal, Advocate with

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR DECLARATION. RFA Nos. 601/2007 and 606/2007. DATE OF DECISION 10th February, 2012.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR DECLARATION. RFA Nos. 601/2007 and 606/2007. DATE OF DECISION 10th February, 2012. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR DECLARATION RFA Nos. 601/2007 and 606/2007 DATE OF DECISION 10th February, 2012 1. RFA 601/2007 SHER SINGH Through: Mr. Avadh Kaushik, Advocate....

More information

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % 1 st October, MRS. VANEETA KHANNA AND ANR. Through: Mr. Sandeep Mittal, Advocate.

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % 1 st October, MRS. VANEETA KHANNA AND ANR. Through: Mr. Sandeep Mittal, Advocate. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) No.1200/2006 % 1 st October, 2015 MRS. VANEETA KHANNA AND ANR.... Plaintiffs Through: Mr. Sandeep Mittal, Advocate. Versus MR. RAJIV GUPTA AND ORS. Through:...

More information

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. MICROSOFT CORPORATION & ANR. Through: Ms. Safia Said, Advocate. versus. Through:

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. MICROSOFT CORPORATION & ANR. Through: Ms. Safia Said, Advocate. versus. Through: * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(COMM) No.70/2015 % 23 rd December, 2015 MICROSOFT CORPORATION & ANR.... Plaintiffs Through: Ms. Safia Said, Advocate. versus MR. SUJAN KUMAR & ORS. Through:...Defendants

More information

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + CS(COMM) No.1564/2016. % 24 th November, 2017

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + CS(COMM) No.1564/2016. % 24 th November, 2017 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(COMM) No.1564/2016 % 24 th November, 2017 BAJAJ RESOURCES LIMITED & ANR.... Plaintiffs Through Mr. J. Sai Deepak, Mr. Piyush Kumar and Mr. Vardaan Anand,

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR PARTITION. Judgment pronounced on: I.A. No.4998/2012 in CS(OS) No.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR PARTITION. Judgment pronounced on: I.A. No.4998/2012 in CS(OS) No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR PARTITION Judgment pronounced on: 10.04.2012 I.A. No.4998/2012 in CS(OS) No.136/2009 SUGANDHA SETHI...Plaintiff Through: Ms. N.Shoba with Mr.

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ACT, 1987 FAO No. 421/2012 DATE OF DECISION : 8th January, 2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ACT, 1987 FAO No. 421/2012 DATE OF DECISION : 8th January, 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ACT, 1987 FAO No. 421/2012 DATE OF DECISION : 8th January, 2014 BIMLA DEVI & ANR. Through: Mr. Raj Kumar Rajput, Advocate....Appellants

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. Civil Appeal No of 2019 (Arising out of SLP(C) No of 2018)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. Civil Appeal No of 2019 (Arising out of SLP(C) No of 2018) 1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No. 3873 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.32456 of 2018) Sevoke Properties Ltd. Appellant Versus West Bengal State

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT, Judgment Reserved on: Judgment Delivered on:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT, Judgment Reserved on: Judgment Delivered on: IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932 Judgment Reserved on: 10.02.2011 Judgment Delivered on: 14.02.2011 RSA No.39/2005 & CM No.1847/2005 SHRI NARAYAN SHAMNANI

More information

$~6. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Judgment delivered on: RSA 4/2015 and CM APPL. 339/2015 & 8696/2015.

$~6. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Judgment delivered on: RSA 4/2015 and CM APPL. 339/2015 & 8696/2015. $~6. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on: 30.06.2015 % Judgment delivered on: 21.12.2015 + RSA 4/2015 and CM APPL. 339/2015 & 8696/2015 DEVENDER BHATI Through:... Appellant Mr.

More information

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + CS(COMM) Nos.421/2016 & 424/2016. % 28 th November, M/s VYSYA LEASING & FINANCE LTD.

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + CS(COMM) Nos.421/2016 & 424/2016. % 28 th November, M/s VYSYA LEASING & FINANCE LTD. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(COMM) Nos.421/2016 & 424/2016 % 28 th November, 2017 1. CS(COMM) No.421/2016 M/S VYSYA LEASING & FINANCE LTD.... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Vidit Gupta, Advocate

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. RFA No.587/2010. DATE OF DECISION :22nd February, 2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. RFA No.587/2010. DATE OF DECISION :22nd February, 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE RFA No.587/2010 DATE OF DECISION :22nd February, 2012 SANTOKH SINGH Through: Mr. Rajat Aneja with Mr. Vaibhav Jairaj, Advs....

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI COMPANY JURISDICTION. CCP (Co.) No. 8 of 2008 COMPANY PETITION NO. 215 OF 2005

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI COMPANY JURISDICTION. CCP (Co.) No. 8 of 2008 COMPANY PETITION NO. 215 OF 2005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI COMPANY JURISDICTION CCP (Co.) No. 8 of 2008 IN COMPANY PETITION NO. 215 OF 2005 Reserved on: 26-11-2010 Date of pronouncement : 18-01-2011 M/s Sanjay Cold Storage..Petitioner

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. CS(OS)No.1307/2006. Date of decision:16th January, 2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. CS(OS)No.1307/2006. Date of decision:16th January, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CS(OS)No.1307/2006 Date of decision:16th January, 2009 SMT. TARAN JEET KAUR... Through: Plaintiff Mr. Rajeev Awasthi, Advocate

More information

Through : Mr.P.V.Kapur, Sr.Advocate with Mr.V.K.Nagrath, Mr.Abhay Varma & Mr.Sidhant Kapur, Advocates.

Through : Mr.P.V.Kapur, Sr.Advocate with Mr.V.K.Nagrath, Mr.Abhay Varma & Mr.Sidhant Kapur, Advocates. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR RECOVERY RESERVED ON : 27th NOVEMBER, 2014 DECIDED ON : 11th DECEMBER, 2014 CS (OS) 1980/2011 & CC No.21/2012 SHIV SHAKTI MADAN... Plaintiff Through

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Non-Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No. 7335 of 2008 CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR, H.U.D.A. & ANR. SHAKUNTLA DEVI Versus J U D G M E N T... Appellant(s).Respondent(s)

More information

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + CS(COMM) Nos.53/2015 & 54/ CS(COMM) No. 53/2015 and I.A. No.25929/2015 (stay)

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + CS(COMM) Nos.53/2015 & 54/ CS(COMM) No. 53/2015 and I.A. No.25929/2015 (stay) * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(COMM) Nos.53/2015 & 54/2015 % 21 st December, 2015 1. CS(COMM) No. 53/2015 and I.A. No.25929/2015 (stay) BIGTREE ENTERTAINMENT PVT. LTD.... Plaintiff Through:

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 C.R.P. 589/1998. Date of Decision: 6th March, 2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 C.R.P. 589/1998. Date of Decision: 6th March, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 C.R.P. 589/1998 Date of Decision: 6th March, 2009 SURINDER KAUR Through: Petitioner Ms. Nandni Sahni, Advocate. versus SARDAR

More information

Delhi Judicial Services Main Exam 2007 Civil Law II

Delhi Judicial Services Main Exam 2007 Civil Law II Delhi Judicial Services Main Exam 2007 Civil Law II Q. 1 A let out his residential house in Delhi to B vide registered lease deed dated 15-3-1992. This lease was for a period of three years commencing

More information

Through : Mr. A.K.Singla, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Pankaj Gupta and Ms.Promila K.Dhar Advocates. Versus

Through : Mr. A.K.Singla, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Pankaj Gupta and Ms.Promila K.Dhar Advocates. Versus IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : PROVIDENT FUND MATTER Writ Petition (C) Nos.670, 671 & 672/2007 Reserved on : 01.02.2007 Date of decision : 09.02.2007 IN THE MATTER OF : PRUDENTIAL SPINNERS

More information

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + CCP(O) No. 120/2005 in OMP No. 342/2004. NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY INDIA (NHAI)... Petitioner.

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + CCP(O) No. 120/2005 in OMP No. 342/2004. NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY INDIA (NHAI)... Petitioner. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CCP(O) No. 120/2005 in OMP No. 342/2004 % 4 th November, 2015 NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY INDIA (NHAI)... Petitioner Through: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Ms. Suchite and

More information

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + ARB.A. 5/2015 & IA 2340/2015 (for stay) versus

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + ARB.A. 5/2015 & IA 2340/2015 (for stay) versus * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ARB.A. 5/2015 & IA 2340/2015 (for stay) Judgment reserved on February 05, 2015 Judgment delivered on February 13, 2015 M/S VARUN INDUSTRIES LTD & ORS... Appellants

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. IPA No.15/2005. Date of decision : November 20, Vs.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. IPA No.15/2005. Date of decision : November 20, Vs. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE IPA No.15/2005 Date of decision : November 20, 2007 Sarbjyot Kaur Saluja and Ors Through: Ms.Geeta Luthra, Advocate.... Plaintiffs

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. I.A. No.1167/2007 in CS(OS) No.2128/2006. Judgment Reserved on:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. I.A. No.1167/2007 in CS(OS) No.2128/2006. Judgment Reserved on: IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE I.A. No.1167/2007 in CS(OS) No.2128/2006 Judgment Reserved on: 24.07.2007 Judgment delivered on: 04.03.2008 Mr. V.K. Sayal Through:

More information

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + FAO(OS) 344/2015 and CM Nos /2015. versus. + RFA(OS) 77/2015 and CM No /2015.

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + FAO(OS) 344/2015 and CM Nos /2015. versus. + RFA(OS) 77/2015 and CM No /2015. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 04.03.2016 Pronounced on: 22.04.2016 + FAO(OS) 344/2015 and CM Nos. 11596-11597/2015 ROHIT TYAGI... Appellant Through: Mr. Manish Pratap Singh, Advocate.

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 RFA 689/1998 DATE OF DECISION : MAY 16, 2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 RFA 689/1998 DATE OF DECISION : MAY 16, 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 RFA 689/1998 DATE OF DECISION : MAY 16, 2012 NAR SINGH DASS GUPTA... Appellant Through: Mr. Ashwini Mata, Sr. Adv. with Mr.

More information

$~9. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % RSA 228/2015 and C.M. No.12883/2015. versus CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI

$~9. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % RSA 228/2015 and C.M. No.12883/2015. versus CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI $~9. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Date of Decision: 03.09.2015 % RSA 228/2015 and C.M. No.12883/2015 SHRI BABU LAL Through: Mr. V. Shukla, Advocate.... Appellant versus DELHI DEVELOPMENT

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR INJUNCTION Date of Judgment: RSA No.55/2009 & CM No.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR INJUNCTION Date of Judgment: RSA No.55/2009 & CM No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR INJUNCTION Date of Judgment: 06.04.2011 RSA No.55/2009 & CM No.6268/2009 NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL Through: Mr.Arjun Pant, Advocate...Appellant

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. RFA No.583/2001. DATE OF DECISION : 5th July, 2011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. RFA No.583/2001. DATE OF DECISION : 5th July, 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE RFA No.583/2001 DATE OF DECISION : 5th July, 2011 M/S A.G.NEOCHEM PVT. LTD.... Appellant Through: Mr. D.P.Chaturvedi, Advocate

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA. M/s Raptakos, Brett & Co. Ltd... Appellant(s) J U D G M E N T. 1) The above appeal has been filed against the judgment

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA. M/s Raptakos, Brett & Co. Ltd... Appellant(s) J U D G M E N T. 1) The above appeal has been filed against the judgment REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1464 OF 2008 M/s Raptakos, Brett & Co. Ltd.... Appellant(s) Versus M/s Ganesh Property... Respondent(s) J U D G M

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION. CS (OS) No.284/2012. Date of order:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION. CS (OS) No.284/2012. Date of order: IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION CS (OS) No.284/2012 Date of order: 02.03.2012 M/S ASHWANI PAN PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. Through: None. Plaintiff Versus M/S KRISHNA

More information

Date of CAV : Pronounced on 11/2/2014. appellants against the order dated passed by Learned

Date of CAV : Pronounced on 11/2/2014. appellants against the order dated passed by Learned IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Misc Appeal No. 224 of 2011 Abdul Hamid and others... Appellants State of Jharkhand and others Versus Respondents Coram : HON BLE MR. JUSTICE D.N.UPADHYAY For the

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI: NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Judgment pronounced on: I.A. No.13124/2011 in CS (OS) No.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI: NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Judgment pronounced on: I.A. No.13124/2011 in CS (OS) No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI: NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Judgment pronounced on: 07.03.2012 I.A. No.13124/2011 in CS (OS) No.1674/2011 SURENDRA KUMAR GUPTA Through Mr. J.S. Mann, Adv....

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : PUBLIC PREMISES (EVICTION OF UNAUTHORIZED OCCUPANTS) ACT, Date of decision: 8th February, 2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : PUBLIC PREMISES (EVICTION OF UNAUTHORIZED OCCUPANTS) ACT, Date of decision: 8th February, 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : PUBLIC PREMISES (EVICTION OF UNAUTHORIZED OCCUPANTS) ACT, 1971 Date of decision: 8th February, 2012 WP(C) NO.11374/2006 OCEAN PLASTICS & FIBRES (P) LIMITED

More information

#1 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. versus. MR RAJBIR ORS... Defendant Through: Ex Parte

#1 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. versus. MR RAJBIR ORS... Defendant Through: Ex Parte #1 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(COMM) 222/2016 TATA SONS LIMITED Through:... Plaintiff Ms. Geetanjali Visvanathan with Ms. Asavari Jain, Advocates versus MR RAJBIR JINDAL @ ORS...

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : GRATUITY. WP(C) No.19753/2004. Order reserved on : Date of Decision: August 21, 2006

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : GRATUITY. WP(C) No.19753/2004. Order reserved on : Date of Decision: August 21, 2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : GRATUITY WP(C) No.19753/2004 Order reserved on : 18.7.2006. Date of Decision: August 21, 2006 Delhi Transport Corporation through The Chairman I.P.Estate,

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 FAO No.8/2010 DATE OF DECISION : 2nd January, 2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 FAO No.8/2010 DATE OF DECISION : 2nd January, 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 FAO No.8/2010 DATE OF DECISION : 2nd January, 2014 MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI Through: Ms. Mini Pushkarna, Advocate....Appellant

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INDIAN SUCCESSION ACT, 1925 FAO 562/2003 DATE OF DECISION : 7th July, 2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INDIAN SUCCESSION ACT, 1925 FAO 562/2003 DATE OF DECISION : 7th July, 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INDIAN SUCCESSION ACT, 1925 FAO 562/2003 DATE OF DECISION : 7th July, 2014 SMT. DARSHAN Through: Mr. Israel Ali, Advocate....Appellants VERSUS SHRI RAJ

More information

CRP No. 429 of The Ahmed Tea Co. (Pvt.) Ltd., K.N.C.B. Path, Boiragimath, Dibrugarh, Assam, represented by its Director Mrs. Nazrana A. Islam.

CRP No. 429 of The Ahmed Tea Co. (Pvt.) Ltd., K.N.C.B. Path, Boiragimath, Dibrugarh, Assam, represented by its Director Mrs. Nazrana A. Islam. THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (The High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram & Arunachal Pradesh) CRP No. 429 of 2008 The Ahmed Tea Co. (Pvt.) Ltd., K.N.C.B. Path, Boiragimath, Dibrugarh, Assam, represented by its

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. RESERVED ON : March 20, DATE OF DECISION : April 2, 2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. RESERVED ON : March 20, DATE OF DECISION : April 2, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR POSSESSION RESERVED ON : March 20, 2008 DATE OF DECISION : April 2, 2008 LPA No. 665/2003 and CM Nos.4204/2004 and 6054/2007 JAGMAL (DECEASED)

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE RC. REV. No.75/2014 DATE OF DECISION : 25th September, 2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE RC. REV. No.75/2014 DATE OF DECISION : 25th September, 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE RC. REV. No.75/2014 DATE OF DECISION : 25th September, 2014 SMT. JAI SHREE LALLA Through: Mr. S.K. Singh, Advocate....Petitioner

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE LPA 776 OF 2012, CMs No. 19869/2012 (stay), 19870/2012 (additional documents), 19871/2012 (delay) Judgment Delivered on 29.11.2012

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, Date of Judgment :

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, Date of Judgment : IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 Date of Judgment : 16.02.2012 CRP 128/2004 and CM No. 85/2012 M/S R.S. BUILDERS & ENGINEERS LTD. Through Mr. Prabhjit

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : PUBLIC PREMISES ACT. Reserved on: November 21, Pronounced on: December 05, 2011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : PUBLIC PREMISES ACT. Reserved on: November 21, Pronounced on: December 05, 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : PUBLIC PREMISES ACT Reserved on: November 21, 2011 Pronounced on: December 05, 2011 W.P.(C) No.3521/2008 AHUJA REFRIGERATION P.LTD. Through:... PETITIONER

More information

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. Versus

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. Versus * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) No.2798/2011 % 19 th October, 2015 SH. SUSHIL YADAV AND ANR. Through: None.... Plaintiffs Versus M/S VALLEY VIEW DEVELOPERS PVT LTD AND ORS.... Defendants

More information

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on: November 27, 2015 % Judgment Delivered on: December 01, CM(M) 1155/2015.

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on: November 27, 2015 % Judgment Delivered on: December 01, CM(M) 1155/2015. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on: November 27, 2015 % Judgment Delivered on: December 01, 2015 + CM(M) 1155/2015 PURAN CHAND Through:... Petitioner Mr.Arun Kumar and Mr.Udit

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT: SUIT FOR POSSESSION AND RECOVERY CS(OS) 2130/2003 & IA 3947/2008. RESERVED ON: December 4, 2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT: SUIT FOR POSSESSION AND RECOVERY CS(OS) 2130/2003 & IA 3947/2008. RESERVED ON: December 4, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT: SUIT FOR POSSESSION AND RECOVERY CS(OS) 2130/2003 & IA 3947/2008 RESERVED ON: December 4, 2008 DATE OF DECISION: APRIL 08, 2009 Mrs.Pushpa Kakkar & Another...

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. FAO (OS) No.48/2004. Reserved on: Date of decision:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. FAO (OS) No.48/2004. Reserved on: Date of decision: IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FAO (OS) No.48/2004 Reserved on: 31.10.2008 Date of decision: 06.11.2008 Mr.Kiran Jogani and Anr. Through: APPELLANTS Mr.Amarjit

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No of 2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No of 2014 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 3482 of 2014 Balwinder Singh, son of late Bahadur Singh Nagi, Resident of Katras Road, PS Bank More, Dist. Dhanbad s/o Sardar Rawal Singh, R/o Gurunanakpur,

More information

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 2467/2015

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 2467/2015 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgement delivered on: 2 nd December, 2015 + CRL.M.C. 2467/2015 PRADIP BURMAN Represented by: Versus... Petitioner Mr. S. Ganesh, Senior Advocate with Mr.

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ACT, 1987 FAO No. 332/2013 DATE OF DECISION : 16th January, 2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ACT, 1987 FAO No. 332/2013 DATE OF DECISION : 16th January, 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ACT, 1987 FAO No. 332/2013 DATE OF DECISION : 16th January, 2014 RAJ KUMARI DEVI & ORS. Through: Mr. Rajnish K. Jha, Advocate....

More information

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT. Case No: RSA 21/2007

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT. Case No: RSA 21/2007 IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (The High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh) Case No: Babulal Choudhury and others Appellants -Versus- Ganesh Chandra Bharali and another... Respondents

More information

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (The High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh) Small Industries Development Bank of India ( SIDBI)

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (The High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh) Small Industries Development Bank of India ( SIDBI) Review Petition No. 73/2013 (Arising out of Misc. Case No. 705/2013 In FAO 6/2013) IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (The High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh) Small Industries Development

More information